On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 12:39 -0700, Matt Arsenault wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2017, at 12:33, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > ah, that makes more sense. Do you mind if I add it to the commit > > message?
you missed this part. I'd prefer if this purpose of the test was included in the commit message. Otherwise the text a bit misleadingly implies that it should also test half conversion. > > (I'll also fix the formatting nits) with that > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]> > > > > out of curiosity what's the use of having these in piglit? supposedly > > the instruction selection and encoding part is tested in llvm lit. Is > > this testing whether the instruction works correctly? shouldn't the hw > > design team have tests for that? > > > > Jan > > We can test an encoding in the lit tests, but we can’t actually check > that it works. I don’t really trust the encoding tests until there’s > something executing it. A lot of times in the past we’ve gotten the > encodings wrong and the instruction doesn’t work, or the manual has > had an off by one error in some of the encodings. is the plan to add every gfx6+ instruction to piglit for that purpose? if you have a generator for these tests wouldn't it make sense to include it in piglit (and maybe drop gcn instruction tests from default run)? Jan > > -Matt
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
